Council moves to deny Grantham building permit after neighbors cite stormwater, trees and sunlight impacts

Council members on April 6 moved to deny a building permit application for 4803 Grantham Avenue after more than two hours of technical presentation and extensive public comment focused on stormwater management, tree removal and neighborhood character.

The hearing opened with a staff presentation by the town’s planner, who reported that the proposed new two‑story house would be 2,717 square feet on an 11,836‑square‑foot lot, with building coverage inside the town’s infill limit (about 23 percent) but an impervious coverage projected at roughly 38.7 percent. Staff emphasized that Somerset’s stormwater standard requires on‑site infiltration for a 2.6‑inch one‑year storm and described a rain‑garden plus dry‑well system sized to capture roughly 7,000–7,700 gallons.

The applicant, Brian Aman of Aman Properties, told the council his team revised drainage calculations after staff flagged an error and increased the size of on‑site stormwater facilities to meet Somerset’s stricter requirements. “We think we’re there,” Aman said, summarizing engineering revisions and soil testing intended to ensure the rain‑garden will function as designed.

But multiple neighbors and several council members said the proposed system and the number of trees slated for removal create unacceptable risks and harms. Matt Moley, a downhill neighbor, urged stronger town enforcement: “We’d appreciate the town’s help in ensuring adherence for whatever plan is approved here,” he said, noting the potential for any future maintenance lapse to affect his property.

Robert Stumbberg, another long‑time resident, framed the debate in terms of neighborhood character: “I have a real feeling of impending loss,” he said, describing a pattern of demolitions and larger infill homes that neighbors say is altering Grantham’s one‑story, mid‑century rhythm.

Council members pressed the applicant and staff on three technical points: whether the rain‑garden’s tested soils and prescribed media will actually infiltrate the design storm; why a permeable driveway could not be used (staff and the applicant said Montgomery County rules typically disallow permeable pavers within 10 feet of foundations and the site’s flat driveway and retaining walls prevent a functioning permeable system); and whether the proposed reforestation plan (planting 14 trees to replace nine removed) will adequately mitigate the short‑ and medium‑term visual and shade losses.

Town arborist Dr. Feathers and staff described the removal of nine trees (including one large, hazardous tulip poplar) and a replanting plan that the applicant said would plant 14 trees, including canopy and evergreen species. Staff explained the town and county require maintenance agreements and recordable easements to preserve stormwater facilities and allow periodic inspection.

After public rebuttal, which reiterated neighborhood concerns, a council member moved to deny the building permit application and suggested the applicant meet with the signatories of written opposition to explore alternative designs. The motion was seconded; the public transcript records the motion and the second but does not include a roll‑call vote or a final recorded outcome.

What happens next: the council’s formal decision on the permit depends on any subsequent recorded vote and the town’s standard appeal period if opposition remains. The hearing record includes multiple resident letters and staff reports that will remain part of the administrative record for any future appeals or revised application.